[yaketysax]

I just told you: most analysis textbooks treat the topic in a nearly identical manner (maybe not in full generality). Do you want to dispute this? Why are you pretending like we're arguing separate issues?

"Your argument is that Rudin is hard for incidental reasons: he skips steps in his proofs. I personally did not feel this way when I read the book. But I am open to the idea that Rudin is imperfect. I personally admire Rudin's concision, but that may just be my personal aesthetic preference."

Good god.